This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, martin at MPA-Garching dot MPG dot DE
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
> Let's keep it simple and straight. The example you gave is just that
> of an inline function, not implicit inline function. There is nothing
> implicit about it. It is an alternate syntax for defining an inline
> function. Not a syntax for defining an implicit inline function.
I find this exegesis confusing and self serving. It seems quite fine to
refer to the form without inline has being implicitly inlined. Whether the
two forms should or should not be treated differently is another matter.
One might ask *why* are there two forms. Perhaps someone should quote the
exact language from the standard here.